OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] point of action


Well, first we have to figure out what this aspect of the RA is and 
then we can begin to answer what standards might support it.

I think we're making progress on the former and then we'll see if the 
latter is straightforward or rocket science.

Ken

At 12:17 PM 8/17/2006, Danny Thornton wrote:
>Whoops, a gremlin in my keyboard must have pressed the
>send button while I was typing that last message.
>
>I would like to answer the following question in the
>RA when describing Visibility and personal, group, and
>global registries.
>
>At what point can we tell the implementation
>architects that there will be standards and
>technologies to support this aspect of the RA?
>
>Danny
>
>
>--- Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> > OK for now.  Hopefully the use of poa in the RA will
> > clarify things
> > or this is going to be a bear to write up for our
> > audience.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > At 11:37 AM 8/17/2006, Francis McCabe wrote:
> > >The POA concept is a general concept that is not
> > limited to services.
> > >So, perhaps, that is what was going though Danny's
> > mind -)
> > >As to private vs public, we are going to get
> > similar issues with the
> > >Point of Decision and Point of Enforcement of
> > policies.
> > >
> > >One important place for the POA in the RA is as the
> > start of the
> > >chain of events that lead to the real world effect.
> > Another is that
> > >the POA acts as one place were policies must be
> > applied. (I cannot
> > >make up my mind exactly how POA relates POD and
> > POE.) Of course, this
> > >is but one place where policies are applied in the
> > RA.
> > >
> > >Frank
> > >On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> > >
> > >>Where it fits in the RA is still my question.  In
> > the example in
> > >>his earlier email, Danny says
> > >>
> > >>To draw another analogy for the point of action, I
> > >>know your mind will be the point of action for
> > >>processing this e-mail as you read the e-mail.
> > The
> > >>e-mail address and the english language is like a
> > >>service interface.
> > >>
> > >>If this example aligns with your meaning, then
> > isn't my mind part
> > >>of the opaque implementation?  [The jokes are
> > altogether too
> > >>obvious so first answer the question and later we
> > can collect the
> > >>best Ken-related responses in a follow-on thread.
> > :-) ]
> > >>
> > >>Ken
> > >>
> > >>On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Francis McCabe
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>The action being referred to in a service
> > interaction is not
> > >>>really any private action. As you use a service
> > to do something
> > >>>then you are performing an action. (There may be
> > consequential
> > >>>events that follow that are internal.) That
> > action has a point of
> > >>>action.
> > >>>
> > >>>Note that with the action-at-a-distance analogy
> > getting clarity on
> > >>>when and where the action is performed may be
> > quite important. For
> > >>>example, if you send a message declaring that you
> > have agreed to a
> > >>>contract, from the service provider's PoV, it is
> > not until it
> > >>>'groks' the message that it considers that you
> > have actually agreed.
> > >>>
> > >>>Frank
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>see below
> > >>>>
> > >>>>At 09:18 AM 8/17/2006, Rex Brooks wrote:
> > >>>>>I hope no one is surprised if I quibble with
> > this particular
> > >>>>>definition, which comes close, in my opinion,
> > but fall just
> > >>>>>short of the mark. I take exception with the
> > choice of using the
> > >>>>>concept of force per se, though I do understand
> > and agree with
> > >>>>>the requirement of making "action" transitive.
> > I would apply a
> > >>>>>small bit of mental jiu jitsu on this
> > definition, thus:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Action: the application of 'intent' to achieve
> > an effect by an
> > >>>>>agent on an object.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Thus, the application of "intent" applies
> > equally well to
> > >>>>>choosing to do "nothing" and allow
> > inertia/momentum to achieve
> > >>>>>an effect,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>but the application of nothing does not require
> > an agent as the
> > >>>>transferral entity if there is nothing to
> > transfer, unless
> > >>>>however you identify the agent as a way of
> > establishing context
> > >>>>for your intended nothing.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>or to require action by some other agent to
> > achieve, prevent or
> > >>>>>allow an effect. In the study of heuristics,
> > one of the least
> > >>>>>well explored results is exactly this, the
> > intentional refusal
> > >>>>>to act per se, which, I contend, constitutes a
> > decision, which
> > >>>>>is, in and of itself, an action at a
> > choice-point branching of a
> > >>>>>decision-tree.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>BTW, this answers the last question below: Yes!
> > and full
> > >>>>>responsibility or culpability applies. Needless
> > to say, this is
> > >>>>>utterly critical to security. Choose not to
> > apply a patch in
> > >>>>>time, and you are caught holding the hot potato
> > if bad things
> > >>>>>happen to good systems.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>So the follow-up question is: what can be
> > identified as the poa
> > >>>>while still maintaining the SOA principle of
> > opacity of the
> > >>>>implementation of services and their underlying
> > capabilities?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>Rex
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>At 7:55 AM -0400 8/17/06, Ken Laskey wrote:
> > >>>>>>Some comments from Frank that didn't get back
> > to the list:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Ken:
> > >>>>>>  The POA *is* the action as it is applied.
> > >>>>>>  If the service is the glove, the POA is the
> > iron fist:)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Different people have different definitions
> > of action, (try
> > >>>>>>define:action in google). None of these
> > definitions is all that
> > >>>>>>satisfactory to me.
> > >>>>>>  My definition is adapted from John Sowa:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Action: the application of force by an agent
> > on an object with
> > >>>>>>the intention of achieving an effect.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  I.e., its a kind of event. The POA is a
> > characterization of
> > >>>>>>that event. (One reason I like this definition
> > is that is
> > >>>>>>includes all human actions but excludes rocks
> > rolling down the
> > >>>>>>hill hitting other rocks.)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  The service interface is the
> > characterization of what it means
> > >>>>>>to perform an action. It is not the action
> > itself though.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Hope that this throws a little light on the
> > matter.
> > >>>>>>Frank
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Per Danny's response, I think he caught my
> > question well with
> > >>>>>>the final line of his response below:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>One question
> > >>>>>>>we can ask is can we identify a point of
> > action
> > >>>>>>>meaningful to the reference architecture that
> > would
> > >>>>>>>not have a service interface?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Ken
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com

--
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   Ken 
Laskey                                                                \
  |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-983-7934   |
  |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:      703-983-1379   |
   \   McLean VA 22102-7508                                              /
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]